Loading...
ZOA71-06 CITY OF FRIDLEY TYPE OF REQUEST MINNESOTA PLANNING AND ZONING FORM ___L_.Resoning ZOA #71-06Special Use permit Number Variance APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Lot Splits 6=0 Address —__ G9 ________Approval of Pre- Telephone Number 77r/- 4 liminary Plat Approval of Final PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE Plat Address / _ d r Streets or Allot-..Telephone Number ��-;L ��dOther 1310 W Street Location of Property Legal Description of Property Present Zoning Classification Existing Use of the Property_ V,er'ca4 ' Proposed Zoning Classification, Special Use, Variance or other request r- - 32- Describe briefly the pe of Use and the Improvement Proposed Acreage of Property X .,�75A, Has the Present Applica Previously Sought to Rezone, Plat, Obtain a Lot Split, Obtain a Variance or Special Use Permit on the Subject Site or Part of It? r*- When? What Was Requested irn Fee Enclosed10 $ Date Filed )-- &71 Date of Hearing r_ PLANNING AND ZONING FORM PACE 2 Number ZQA # JzQL ,_ The undersigned understands that: (a) A list of all residents and owners of pro- perty within 300 feet must be attached to this application. (b) This application must be signed by all owners of the property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the pro- ceedings resulting from the failure to list the names and addresses of all residents and property owners of property within 300 feet of the property in question, belongs to the undersiZned. Residents and Owners of property within 300 feet:' PERSONS ADDRESS L106 7d nA /J I D,�'sl r1,trYld� 7 ` v Ilan0 oc&ttAA�1_ Lk S5 32 A sketch of proposed pYopexry ,aud structure mustj drevn on the back of this form or attached, showing the following: 1. :North Direction 2. Location of Proposed Structure on lot. 3. Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and front and side set-backs. 4. Street Names S. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (within 300 feet) . The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this application are true and correct. ppZg SIGKATURE_L(V�l �• --e - (APPLICANT) Approved Denied By the 3oasd of Appebis Subject .to the Following Conditions: date Approved Denied by the Planning Commission on Subject to the Erollowing Conditions: date Approved Denied_ by the_ Council on Subject to the Following Conditions: date Form PC 100 r 3 L Q , n � � d S cYl Q s 1 fl Vi a U N en Q C)£ in 'n 70 2 N � ,oh an �� 4ro F1 Z-2I oq T-g MOad auozag OT# 'S'V `T 'TS `9T "I paw asaag •M PTauoQ :90-TL# VOZ OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on August 18, 1971 in the Council Chamber at 8:00 P.M. for the purpose of: Consideration of a rezoning request, ZOA #71-06, by Donald W. Reese to rezone Lot 16, Block 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 10 from R-1 (single family dwelling) to R-2 (double bungalow) , lying in the Northeast Quarter of Section 13, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. Generally located at 6887 Central Avenue Northeast. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may be heard at this time. OLIVER R. ERICKSON CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: August 4, 1971 August 11, 1971 ZOA X671-06: DONALD W. REESE L. 16, B1. 1, Rev. A.S. #lC Rezone from R-1 to R-2 (double bungalow) ' t'.1 =►�. i� I �c�i e iy �o � 5 Y f.r�1 f ��ti 0.I% �,' M't Y..d�� ��. � ''3' yP �• A'• � V. Z. a' ,'�.�;'`,r�'r ..�1: �,�''+ ;.Ty�'•' �' I�'"' W 10 y"9y ,.��fC I.s�>`�yy�r,�'t.+�'.a^ ',f°;•` , 01, 7.� �" �a�� i��� � "p / �s lits 7 /.'�j� '�.."�.I"t' X� � g �py;J.•.� <" 9 t, 1 H av 1-ST A•1 a AID— - 305 1 ---- - - i 4 D W 3 ` E �'- C - A t'r! � U 9 Q6 CHANNEL ROAp 2 x3 4 „ I ;/ 0I z� �4 a . 4 AUD/T-OR'S UB oit o� I t • _ I 1 'CTEiGC RIC CREEK- c { 7 ^�F t - RICE CREEK ----� TI_ '3 5 i AVE - 6 wG „ � I , Iw y , .. � 1 Rici. � I N �a z� ^ 66TH AVE. WE Cf� -- — Cg �< 6 -H 2 � 66TH AVENUE i I6, I �;_' _ 13 2 � 14, = � , �• E Oti t"t.' ' L-L_J L 1 T TATE A:'p 3041 _ STREET Mailing List for ZOA #71-06 Mr. & Mrs . Donald Reese Mailed 7/30/71 Mr. & Mrs . Donald Reese 2210 East Eldridge Avenue North Saint Paul, Minnesota 55109 Onan 1400 - 73rd Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Medtronic 6970 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Mr. David L. Case III 1320 - 69th Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Mr. Christopher Aasland 1330 - 69th Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Mr. Raymond E. Logid 1340 69th Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Mr . Emmett O'Loughlin 5387 N.E. Altura Road Fridley, Minnesota 55432 y ji 1i CC'r �,k,✓�avC k4 F 1-r- i 7 /7 �7, / /) /!i v , o 6 , 1 U✓Y � I dam' li 3. ..a v A - f ril i V r I oo j i �x1i 4 ( V ID ti o y 1 % XF1x 00 Q Q Q ro 4 - lJ� vohaf[ _a7 o C\.1 b ' '� ♦! � �'CI�r ifi Vii/ I ^ ❑,? O �19 ti co ' o � 00, xy 0 � 4 i J i) err ESE ooi f� f5z o ffW✓✓ v � c. � �•lf� 'K i+r/ ' o SC 41 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1971 Page 5 Chairman Erickson said that there was no proposal at the time of the. plat to do anything with this parcel. Now the description reads "Lot 5, except that part ---------", a metes and bounds description. It seemed to him that matter should be resolved. If the Commission and Council desire to act favor- ably on the request, they should put in whatever conditions they want as far as the descriptions are concerned, but he thought the matter of the petition should be considered first. He could not see any sense talking about the necessity of filing a plat on that one lot until the request for rezoning is resolved. MOTION by Zeglen, seconded by Schmedeke, that the Planning Commission con- firm the date of August 18, 1971 for a public hearing of a rezoning request, ZOA #71-05, Real Estate 10, Inc. by Francis J. Girdler, to rezone part of Lot 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25 to be rezoned from R-3 (general multiple family dwellings) to CR-1 (general office and limited business) . Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING: ZOA 471-06, DONALD W. REESE: Lot 16, Block 1, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 10: Rezone from R-1 to R-2 (double bungalow). IMr. Donald W. Reese was present. Chairman Erickson said that he wanted Mr. Reese to be aware of the set- backs required under R-2. Mr. Reese said he had been briefed by Mr. Herlofsky, and that they do not plan to build for a year. He said they had been looking for property for a year. They gave up on zoned property. The realtor ran an ad that this lot could probably be rezoned. Chairman Erickson said that the setbacks on the property on the East has to be considered. All of the houses East are setback further than 35 feet. Mr. Reese would have to have a waiver of the ordinance as he could not be more than six feet ahead of the houses on either side. Mr. Reese said if the rezoning request went through, they thought that eventually they could split the lot into two lots. Chairman Erickson said there is the possibility it could be done, but there would be no room for a street easement. The lot for sale ,just South of this property has a driveway, but it is only a driveway. There are other problems at the East of this area. There is no sewer on Central Avenue. Water is on the other side of Central, but this line could be extended. There is sewer down the middle of 69th Avenue from Central Avenue to the City Limits. Mr. Reese should retain an easement to go from the-back of the lot out to 69th Avenue. MOTION by Zeglen, seconded by Minish, that the Planning Commission confirm the public hearing date of August 18, 1971 for the rezoning request, ZOA #71-06, by Donald W. Reese, to rezone from R-1 to R-2 (double bungalow) Lot 16, Block 1, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 10. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting - August 18, 1971 Page 2 F f Mr. Zeglen stated he had driven by the Learning Center in Robbinsdale and he thought it was a nice looking building. Mr. Leidich said the building in Fridley would be architecturally the same except it would be larger. The lots in Fridley are on the same level as Target. Darrel Clark added that the adjoining residents were not objecting to the use, but had questions about the trespassers on the vacant lots between their houses and the proposed building. He continued the utilities will come down from the North, and the petitioner is prepared to petition Council for them. Mr. Minish felt the day nursery and learning center was a reasonable use of the property. The question before the Planning Commission was whether or not a day nursery would be permissible under R-1 zoning, and that has been answered by the City Attorney. The other concern was fencing Lots 1, 2 and 3, but rather wait to see if, in spite of the proposed building, the trespassers continued to use Lot 3 to get to Target, the stipulation of fencing Lot 3 could be made a condition of the Special Use Permit. . Mr. Clark said that Mr. Herrin- ger, owner of the property, would have to be contacted, and hopefully, would agree. MOTION by Minish, seconded by Zeglen, that the Planning Commission recom- mend approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #71-09, by Social Dynamics, Inc. to construct and operate a day nursery and learning center on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Oak Hill Addition under Section 45.051, 3, F, of the City Code with the condition that the petitioner follow through on the petition for utilities, and that the fence be extended across the rear of Lot 3 to pre- vent people cutting across to go to Target. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #71-05, REAL ESTATE 10, INC. , FRANCIS GIRDLER: Part of Lot 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25, to be rezoned from R-3 (general multiple family dwelling) to CR-1 (general office and limited business) . Acting Chairman Fitzpatrick read the Public Hearing Notice. Inasmuch as Mr. Sheridan, the owner, was the only one present, and the applicant, Mr. Girdler, would be late, Chairman Fitzpatrick stated that he would entertain a motion to continue the request until later in the evening. MOTION by Minish, seconded by Zeglen, that the rezoning request, ZOA #71-05, by Real Estate 10, Inc. be tabled until the applicant appears. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARING• REZONING REQUEST, ZOA 471-06, DONALD W. REESE: Lot 16, Block 1, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 10, to rezone from R-1 to R-2 (double bungalow). The Public Hearing Notice was read by Chairman Fitzpatrick. Mr. and Mrs. Donald W. Reese were preseat. Mr. Reese explained they were purchasing this pi:perty if the rezoning Planning Commission Meeting - August 18, 1971 Page 3 went through as they plan to build a double bungalow on the North half of the lot and then later split the lot and construct another double bungalow on the South half. Phillip J. O'Loughlin, 5387 Altura Road: Mr. O'Loughlin said he was speaking for his father. He said they owned the lot directly to the Scuth of Lot 16. He asked Mr. Reese where the buildings would be placed. Mr. Reese said the house on the North half would be facing County Road H, and the bungalow on the South half would face Central Avenue. He said they had not requested a lot split at this time. He said there would be no changes in the elevation of the North half. Mr. O'Loughlin said they would object to splitting of the lots and the building of two double bungalows. He asked Mr. Reese what type of double bungalow he planned to build. Mr. Reese said there would be a three car garage for each unit, but they had not ordered plans until the zoning was decided. Mr. Clark said that if the request were granted, Mr. Reese would have to have an easement to be served by water from 69th Avenue. Chairman Fitzpatrick asked for area requirements. Mr. Clark answered that the lot is large enough to split. It is more than 20,000 square feet making 10,000 square feet for each double bungalow. The area is sufficient to meet the requirements. Mr. O'Loughlin said that he would like to see plans of the proposed buildings. Chairman Fitzpatrick explained that the application is a rezoning request. If the rezoning were approved, they would then be building within the permitted uses. The request will come up again before the Council. Mr. Reese said that it is a large lot and they did not feel they could afford the taxes for the whole lot, and that was why they would build on half until they could see their way clear to build another bungalow. Mrs. Reese also added that they are buying the lot, and plan to build a double bungalow on the North end of the lot and they would be moving in and renting out the other part. They hoped some day, with the taxes on the whole lot being high, to split the lot and build a second bungalow, as they did not anticipate being able to pay taxes on the large lot indefinitely. If they didn' t split the lot, it would put them in the position where they would have to lower the quality of the construction. To help them out with the financing of the double bungalow, they might have to sell the second lot. They did not plan to change anything on the lot, such as trees and elevation. The lot adjoining on the East is on the same level. Mr. O'Loughlin's lot is on the South, and South of that is Rice Creek. MOTION by Zeglen, seconded by Minish, that the Planning Commission close the public hearing of the rezoning request, ZOA #71-06, by Donald W. Reese to rezone from R-1 to R-2 (double bungalow) Lot 16, Block 1, Revised Auditor's Subdivision #10. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, th, motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting - August 18, 1971 Page 4 Mr. Minish said there are single family homes adjoining Lot 16, a park to the South, single family across Central Avenue with the exception of Medtronics and Onan's to the North, neither of which would be detrimental to single family homes, and the intention to seek a lot split later on, is not desirable. He would like an explanation why rezoning was more desirable than a special use permit. MOTION by Minish, seconded by Zeglen, that the Planning Commission recom- mend to Council denial of the rezoning request, ZOA #71-06, by Donald W. Reese of Lot 16, Block 1, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 10, to rezone from R-1 (single family dwellings) to R-2 (double bungalows) because of the number of single family dwellings in the area, the property is close to a park, and the lot could be developed under R-1. Chairman Fitzpatrick said the MOTION was open for further discussion. Mrs. Reese said that when they applied for R-2 zoning, they talked to the people who owned the neighboring lots. They told the owners of their intentions and felt these people would be at the meeting if they opposed the request. On the North is Medtronics and Onan's. The O'Loughlin lot is between their property and the park. They did not believe their plans would detract from the neighborhood. In the listing of the lot in the local paper, it was stated that the land could be zoned R-2. Chairman Fitzpatrick asked how many single family residences were in the close area. He was told nine. Then he asked how many were notified. Three of them were within 300 feet and were notified. Mr. Zeglen asked about the lots to the East, Lots 17, 18, 19 and 20. Mr. Clark said these houses on 69th are older homes and are set back about 60 feet and a little more centrally located on the lot's. The owners have not expressed any idea of splitting, and there are no easements on the South end of the lots. They could be landlocked lots. MOTION: Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. _REOPENED ITEM 2: ZOA 471-05, REZONING REQUEST, REAL ESTATE 10, INC FRANCIS GIRDLER. MOTION by Minish, seconded by Zeglen, that the Planning Commission reopen the public hearing of ZOA #71-05, by Real Estate 10, Inc. to rezone from R-3 to CR-1 part of Lot 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Because of a conflict of interest, Mr. Minish excused himself from participating in the proceedings. Mr. Girdler explained his firm was buying the property of Mr. Sheridan for their home office on a piece of property which they feel will enhance the value of the surrounding properties. They plan to occupy the first floor, offices in the basement and second floor for rental. Because theirs is real estate business, there will be very little traffic as far as the public is con- cerned other than closing transactions with buyers and sellers and the salesmen. OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that there .will be a Public Hearing of the City Council of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on October 4 , 1.971 in the Council Chamber at 7 :30 P.M. for the purpose of: Consideration of a rezoning request , ZOA #71-06 , by Donald W. Reese to rezone Lot 16 , Block 1 , Auditor 's Subdivision No . 10 from R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) to R-2 (Double Bungalow) , lying in the Northeast Quarter of Section 13 , T-30 , R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. Generally located on the Southeast corner of Central Avenue and 69th Avenue . Anyone desiring to be heard with_ reference to the above matter may be heard at this time. JACK 0. KIRKHAM MAYOR PUBLISH: September 15 , 1971 September 22 , 1971 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 30, 1971 PAGE 9 provision made in the plans to add a planting strip to screen Mr. Lynn's property from the lights. Seconded by Council Liebl. Upon a roll call vote, Kirkham, Liebl, Harris and Kelshaw voting aye; Breider voting nay, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried. PRESENTATION OF SCROLL, MAYOR OF TOKYO: Mr. Stan Kowalski was now present in the audience so this item was taken up. Mayor Kirkham commented that last year some Fridley citizens presented a scroll to the Mayor of Bangalor, India and now we have a citizen carrying greetings to the Governor of Tokyo. Mayor Kirkham read the scroll aloud. Mr. Kowalski informed the Council that the State Department has decided to use the presenta- tion of the scroll for national public relations. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE FOR SALE OF REAL ESTATE OWNED BY CITY (6161 HIGHWAY #65) : MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to adopt the ordinance on first reading and waive the reading. Seconded by Councilman Liebl. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL PLANS FOR SHOREWOOD LIQUOR LOUNGE, WILLIAM NICKLOW: Mr. Nicklow brought the plans to the Council table and there was a le4gthy discussion. MOTION by Councilman Harris to approve the final plans for the Shorewood Liquor Lounge subject to receipt of the final mechanical, heating, plumbing and electrical plans and the plans necessary for the Health Sanitarian and also that the proposed parking on the south side of the building be a minimum of 30' to 35' setback from a line so drawn on the map to indicate Moore Lake and that parking places #14-18 be removed from the plan and that the complete parking lot be curbed as per City ordinances. Seconded by Councilman Liebl. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried. RECESS: Mayor Kirkham-declared a recess at 9:45 P.M. The Council Meeting was recon- vened at 10:00 P. M. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 18, 1971: 1. PEQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #71-09, BY SOCIAL DYNAMICS, INC. , JAMES LEIDICH: LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, OAK HILL ADDITION. TO BUILD AND OPERATE A DAY NURSERY AND LEARNING CENTER UNDER SECTION 45.051, 3,F, OF CITY CODE: Mr. Leidich showed a picture of the day care and learning center that his corporation is planning to build in Fridley. ' There are already centers in Robbinsdale and Bloomington. They were originally formed to serve preschool children of both working and non-working mothers. They use only licensed teachers and teaching assistants. The building would be located on 53rd Avenue on the two lots closest to Target: They have met with the residents in the area and their only concern seemed to be the people who will cut across the lots. This has been taken care of with an extension of the fence. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 30, 1971 PAGE 10 Mayor Kirkham asked the dimensions of the building and Mr. Leidich replied that it would be 80' x 70' and there would be a playground in the back. Mr. Leidich took a plot plan to the Council table . The City Engineer reported that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request, but the applicant should be aware of the problems. First, water and sewer is not readily available, and secondly, there is the problem of the fence. The property is located on 53rd Avenue and the water and sewer lines would have to be run from a north location in Target property, because this is a low piece of land. Either the developer would have to pay the full assessment cost or the City would have to show that the other property benefitted. The City Attorney commented that he would need more details to decide if the other property benefitted. The City Engineer continued that the problem was not in serving them, it was in the cost. If they want to pay for the assessment, they will have to come back and petition the City Council to have the facilities put in. Councilman Harris asked where the corner lot on 53rd was tied in. The City Engineer explained that Mr. Leidich's property could not be served off that line because his land was too low and the cost of a lift station would probably be even higher than running the lines the longer distance. MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to concur with the Planning Commission recommenda- tion of approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #71-09, by Social Dynamics, Inc. with the conditions that the petitioner follow through on the petition for utilities, and that the fence be extended across the rear of Lot 3. Seconded by Councilman Liebl. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried. 2. REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #71-06, DONALD,W. REESE- LOT 16, BLOCK 1, REVISED AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 10, TO REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-2 (DOUBLE BUNGALOW) The City Engineer explained that this was a request to rezone from R-1 (Single family dwellings) to R-2 (double bungalows) . Planning Commission recommended denial of this request. Mr. Donald Reese explained to the Council that he wished to request a Public Hearing before the Council so that other people could be heard regarding his request. MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw, to set a Public Hearing date for the second meeting in October. Seconded by Councilman Harris. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried. 3. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #71-10, VIKING CHEVROLET. FOR NEW AND USED CAR SALES ON PARCELS 2850, 4350 AND 4360, SECTION 12, PER CITY CODE, 45.101,_ 3, B IN A C-2S DISTRICT: Mr. Wyman Smith, Attorney for Viking Chevrolet, introduced Mr. Jerry Brady, the Manager of Viking Chevrolet, who took site plans to the council table. Mr. Smith explained that Viking Chevrolet planned to upgrade the property as far as the setback and planting were concerned. They planned to have possession by November 1, 1971. Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request with the stipulation that their plans for remodeling be reviewed by 4 � � t I REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, :.1971 PAGE 4 Mr. Van Eeckhout said that there were six townhouse units per building, and 40% would give them about 7 building, He added they had sold eight units already. Councilman Kelshaw asked if, they;were satisfied with 40% and Mr. Van Eeckhout said yes. THE VOTE upon the motion, being a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried. Councilman Liebl asked that the City Attorney be notified as soon as there is any action tuken in regard to the roadway. The people were told at the rezoning hearing that the road would be on Viewcon's land and there would not be the traffic.on their roads. Mr. Van Eeckhout said they were very concerned about the balance of the utilities. They are going to have to be put in no matter what the land is used for. If Fridley feels it is desirable to extend the courtesy to their neighbor and not award the rest of 'the utility award, he would ask that the balance be aimarded rat least before the year is out. The City Engineer said, as the Council will recall, they withheld that p, rtion to be built within the tc~mhouse.and multiple area. If they are holding that section, he did not sea aazy sense in giving building permits if the utilities are not available. Since the Council wishes to give out the building permits, then the utilities will have to be put in. He suggested that that portion of the contract be considered at Pe next regular meeting and in the meantime, the City Administration would again talk to New Brighton. Mr. Van Eeckhout said that a two week delay was all right with them. The City Engineer asked that Viewcon submit their request in writing. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON 1972 BUDGET: MOTION by Councilman Liebl to continue the public hearing on the 1972- budget to the meeting of October 18, 1971. 5econd3d by Councilmam Kelshaw. Upon a \f voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried. j� CONTINUED PUBLIC HE RING ON ASSESSMENT FOR STREET IMPROVE'iENT PROJECT ST. J// 1970-1: 1 (SIDE.aUX ON OSBORNE RQziD FROM 5TH STREET TO T.H. #65) The City Engineer said this work involved installing a sidewalk on Osborne Road from 5th Street to the shopping center. area by T.H. #65. The work was done as the City felt there was a need for the sidewalks in this area. Mayor Kirkham asked if there was anyone present to speak on t�,is asses-mnent, with no response. MOTION by Councilman Liebl to close the public hearing on the assessment- roll for Street lmprove:zent Project St. 1970-1 (Sidc-.�aalk on Osborne Road from 5th Street to T.H. #65) . Seconded by Councilman Kelshaw. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor. Kirkham. Coclared the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING ON RE70NIFdG P UEST BY DONALD W. RE'ESE (Zak #71-06) TO REZONE ..._ ..__ FRIh'4 R-1 TO R--2 (DOUDLE BUi?GAI 7 AREA GENERF_LLY LOCATED ON THE S.E. COk2N-3 OF CENTRAL AVENUE AND 69TH AVENUE: Mayor Kir!-him read the public hearing notice and the City Engineer sho-acd the area on the overhez,d projector, and said this location is on the southea„r corner of Central A-1,,0nue «nd 69th Ave.nuu. '113e discussion by the P1zuming Coam.ission is, in the Agenda. and their recoamaendation is for denial. The applicaht reque-ted this pLJ.AAc° hearing, i REGV-L44 COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, 1971 PAGE 5 Mr. Blaire Edmundson, 10152 Butternut St. N.W. , Coon Rapids, said he rep- resented the seller. Mrs. Anderson is selling the property, because since 1967, she is a widow and has tried to sell the property as the taxes are high and the property is not producing. With industrial property across the street the property did not move. He pointed out there was also some commercial to the west, making this an undesirable location for a single family residence. Under these circumstances, he said they feel that a double bungalow would be the best use, with residential to the east and south of them. He pointed out there was heavy traffic on Central Avenue and 69th Avenue. The taxes on this piece of property have been $530, including assess- ments and this is too much of a burden to her. Councilman Liebl said that he believed Lots 17, 18, 19, and 20 to the east were residential lots, and asked what was on the lots west of there, across Central Avenue. Mr. Edmundson said he was correct about the lots to the east and said the lots across the street to the west were owned by Medtronics and , are presently zoned residential. He added that to the north is Onans and to the south, the creek, with one residential lot in between. Mrs. Sharon Baker, said she .Was representing both the buyer and the seller in this issue. They felt this would be the best usage of the property in order to dispose of it. The double bungalow would be in the $40,000 bracket, and would be a very unique building. She said a $40,000 double bungalow would be about equal to two $25,000 homes. She said this double bungalow would represent an increase in taxes received by the City of Fridley and that the $530 in taxes and assessments is a burden that Mrs. Anderson can no longer i bear. She felt this would be an improvement to the area and would open it up for more development. Councilman Liebl said that before the Council comsaits itself, they must consider the whole area, and ask the question if there could be residential homes in the area with Onans to the north and Medtronics to the west. Mrs. Baker said that Lots 1, 2, & .3A across the street are owned by Medtronics, and she knew they did speculate in land, and it would be speculation to guess what it would be used for in the future. Councilman Liebl said that before he had to vote, he would like to see where the house would sit on the lot. Would it be facing 69th Avenue or Central Avenue? This is a deep lot, would there be a lot split? Mrs. Baker said that the difficulty with a lot split is that the utilities are on the east side of Central Avenue and they would have to get a permit from Anoka County to tunnel under the -read to bring the utilities in for the south half of the lot. She said the buyer is aware of this. The building proposed would face 69th Avenue and in the future they may put in one on the south and of the lot facing Central Avenue. Councilman Liebl said the City did not have extensive acreage left, and what there is must be utilized to its best use. Mrs. Baker said that because of the cost of preparing an .architectural drawing, they did not feel that would be-wise until they knew if the rezoning would be approved. Their purcAase agreemajit is dated July 12th and is based upon the future rezoning and subdividing the. lot. She said she would ask for an answer-as soon as possible, and that they had hoped to have closed the sale by this time. r REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, 1971 PAGE 6 Councilman Liebl pointed out that the Planning Commission did have some heavy arguments against this rezoning. He said his vote would depend on how much of an investment they would be making and would take into consideration the overall concept of the area. Mr. Edmundson asked if it would come up fora vote at the next regular meeting if they prepared a sketch showing the location of the building and the lot split. Mayor Kirkham said yes, the Council hears anyone that wishes to speak at the public hearing, then it comes back to the Council at the next regular meeting for a decision. The City Attorney asked if the neighbors have been notified of the rezoning hearing before the Council. The City Engineer said yes, by letter and also published notice in the paper. Mayor Kirkham asked if there had been any objections received and the City Engineer replied, not to his knowledge. Mr. Phillip O'Loughlin, 5387 Altura Road N.E. , said that he had Lot ,E directly south of the lot being discussed, and he had planned to build a nice home in there, but a double bungalow would devalue that lot too much. He questioned what if the lots just to*the east of Lot 16 wanted to split, would they not have to take some of his property for a road? Councilman Liebl said Ji of the road would come from Mr. O'Loughlin's property. Mr. O'Loughlin said that a road might be detrimental to Lot E. Mrs. Baker said those lots face 69th Avenue and are 275' deep from the edge of the street to the back lot line. If there was a future lot split of these lots, which she did not think likely because the houses are set quite far back on the lots already, there is an easement running north-south five lots over from Central. She felt they would probably put in a cul-de-sac to allow nice homes to be built, and this would not interfere with any other property. She added that there is quite a bit of low land on Lot E, and would not be considered very buildable, the double bungalow would increase the value of the land. Mr. O'Loughlin disagreed and said it would not. Mrs. Baker said she was speaking in terms of the terrain. The City Engineer suggested that the Council could consider allowing the double bungalow on the corner, then have a house on the south � of the lot which would act as a buffer to Lot E. In that way the double bungalow would act as a buffer between the industrial area across 69th Avenue and the residential lot of the south. Councilman Liebl said that they must consider the abutting property owners and by granting this request, it would set a precident. It would be a first step and the rest of the property may be developed in this manner. He asked Mrs. Anderson if she just owned the one lot. Mrs. Anderson said yes, and explained that their house was taken in the tornado in 1965 and they had to buy another. She has had to pay the taxes on this lot and maintain the home she has and this added burden is too much for her. Councilman Liebl commented then Mrs. Anderson's primary reason for asking for this rezoning was hardship. Mr. Edmundson said he is a builder of residential homes, and as a builder, he would not invest in this lot for a single family home, because the industry does devalue the home. Mr. O'Loughlin said that Medtronics and Onans are not ordinary industries, and are very nicely landscaped. Mayor Kirkham asked if the large parcel of land to the north has been zoned industrial for a long time and the City Engineer replied yes, there has been no zoning change in this area for some time. He added that the lots owned by Medtronics are nicely landscaped. r � REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, 1971 PAGE 7 MOTION by Councilman Liebl to close the public hearing on the rezoning request by Donald W. Reese, ZOA #71-06. Seconded by Councilman Kelshaw. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Kirkham declared the hearing closed at 8:45 P.M. Mayor Kirkham informed the applicants that this will be back on the Agenda for the Meeting of October 18th, and added that it would be helpful if they could work up a sketch of the building on the lot, and the proposed lot split. RESOLUTION #126-1971 - CERTIFYING CHARGES TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO BE LEVIED AGAINST CERTAIN PROPERTIES FOR COLLECTION WITH THE TAXES PAYABLE IN 1972: (Weed Cutting Charges) Mayor Kirkham suggested that this item be taken up at this time as he believed there were some people present that wanted to be heard relating to the weed cutting charges. Councilman Liebl explained for the clarification of the audience that this resolution spells out the charges and the lots the City has cut according to the ordinance that was passed a few years ago. This has been done in previous years. The ordinance gives the City the right to cut weeds on residential and empty lots twice a year. That owner is billed and if the bill is not paid the charges are certified to the county to be applied to the taxes through this resolution. He said he has received many calls commending the City for passing such an ordinance. When empty lots are not cut, it detracts from the appearance of the homes on either side. He said he has also received some complaints from people that own large lots saying the charges are too high, but they had the opportunity to cut the lots themselves, or hire it done, and chose not to. Mr. Harland Berry, 7091 Hickory Drive N.E. , said that he had a 80' X 140' lot for which he was billed $38.38 for cleanup. His neighbors said that they did not even see a truck in there. He had Councilman Breider and the Superintendent of Public Works -up there and Councilman Breider felt that charge was ridiculous. (Lot 14, Block 1, Ostman's 3rd Addition). The City Assessor said that Mr. Berry's adjusted bill of $80.76 includes an Adminis- trative charge and an interest charge if it has to be certified. The City Manager said that he had talked to Mr. Berry and also Bob Barnette, the Weed Inspector. He explained to Yr. Berry that it would be physically impossible for the Weed Inspector to oversee each cutting job by the con- tractor to see that he does in fact pick up all the trash prior to cutting, however, Mr. Cutbirth, the Heed Contractor, has stated that he has given a rebate of $21.60, which reduces the bill to only his cost, and is as far as he will go. He states that he has signed affidavits by his employees as to the number of hours that they have put in on this piece of property, and is prepared to go into court to collect the original cost if necessary. The City Manager said he has talked to all the parties concerned to try to resolve the differences. Mr. Barnette said he had talked to Mr. Berry and this situation actually goes back three years. There were a number of lots cut for Mr. Berry and there was a question in regard to some material which Mr. Berry says was removed from a lot, and Mr. Cutbirth claims he did not remove it. There were a number of complaints on this particular lot, Lot 14, there was a heavy weed growth and r REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, 1971 PAGE 8 a lot of undergrowth. Mr. Cutbirth states that they did have trucks in there. Mr. Barnette said he talked to Mr. Berry and met him at the site. Mr. Cutbirth's employees did verify that there were two truckloads of material taken from there. He said he could not personally verify this as he did not see the trucks. Mr. Cutbirth did reimburse Mr. Berry in the amount of $21.60. Mr. Berry said there was a charge of $24 for a Jari mower. Mr. Barnette said he did not see the Jari mower on the property, but they did do some cutting with a mower. It seems the Jari mower broke down and they did not use it after that. This is a very rough lot. Mr. Berry said he could cut the lot with a hand scythe in eight hours. The grass was cut high off the ground and there is still trash there, which Council- man Breider can attest to. Mayor Kirkham said in the absence of Councilman Breider when this resolution is adopted, this lot will be deleted, and it will be brought back at the next regular Meeting. MOTION by Councilman Liebl to adopt Resolution #126-1971, deleting Lot 14, Block 1, Ostman's 3rd Addition, which is to be brought back at the Meeting of October 18th. Seconded by Councilman Kelshaw. Councilman Kelshaw commented that if this gentleman has so many questions, there are doubts in his mind on how many other people have objections. The City Manager said that they have resolved a number of complaints prior to this Meeting. He said the actual amount that would be certified is $80.76 which includes an 8% interest charge if it is levied against the property. It also includes up to $10 in administrative charges which he 'could have to pay anyhow. The City Assessor said that this is not something the people do not know about, they have been billed and have not paid. Mr. Wyman Smith said he has heard complaints that the people are being over- charged, and also that the administrative charge is too high. In most cases there is not enough money involved to spend money to fight it in court, so the people are stuck with paying the bill. He felt it was time to change contractors as there are too many complaints. Councilman Kelshaw said that the City Administration will be studying this. He said he was in the Weed Inspector's office this afternoon, and also talked to the City Manager about this. Last year only one bid was received and it looked favorable. It seems this man had some bad luck and lost some equipment. The City will definitely be looking into this before the contract is let next year. Mayor Kirkham said that people complained last year, then did not do anything about doing the work themselves this year, then they again complain. They have the option of hiring the work done, but they chose not to. With the large number of charges levied, there really are not too many complaints. Council- man Kelshaw commented that when a bill can be cut in half or one third, he must question if it was not too high in the first place. THE VOTE upon the motion, being a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1971 PAGE 9 only lots with homes on them are to the east and the south. He showed the over- all area on the screen and outlined the zoning and park land that is adjacent to Stinson Boulevard and on toward the west of Stinson that is where the multiple units are planned. There are some tax forfeit lots that Fridley hopes to get from the County in this area. He did not feel that Lot 16 would be conducive to single family homes because of the traffic and the industrial zoning to the north. The suggestion he offered was that if the lot was split, the south 12 might be maintained as R-1 because of the objection received from Lot E. Who- ever would buy the south half of the lot would know that the north half would be zoned R-2. Councilman Breider asked how deep Lots 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 were. The City Engineer said close to 300' . Councilman Breider asked how they would get access if the lots were split. The City Engineer said the existing homes are set far back. The homes in this area are not new. It would be possible that sometime in the future, these homes may be removed and a larger structure built. Mayor Kirkham asked if there had been any zoning changes recently and the City Engineer said no, only those parcels along Stinson Boulevard. The area where Onans is is industrial and has been for many years. Mayor Kirkham asked what was the zoning across Central Avenue where the old pickle factory was. The City Engineer said it is still commercial and has been for some time. Just to the north of that parcel are the three lots Medtronics owns that are zoned R-1. Councilman Liebl said that before any move is made that would set a precident, he felt there should be a recommendation from the City Engineer or the Planning Commission on how this area should be developed. He said he would like this before he would be ready to vote. He said he was concerned that the Council do the right thing and is responsive to tie community. Councilman Breider said he was not in favor of mixing R-2 with single family homes. By subdividing the lot and zoning the north half for double bungalows and the south half residential would make them hard to build on. He would recommend denial. Councilman Kelshaw said he would agree with Councilman Liebl and would like to get a recommendation. -He pointed out there is a motel just south of the creek also. He also felt this would be a case of spot zoning. Councilman Breider said that if this is turned back to the Planning Commission, it may take some time, and he understood the reason the Commission did act, was that the applicants were in a hurry for an answer. Mr. Blaine Edmundson, 10152 Butternut St. N.W. , said he was a friend of Mrs. Anderson's and gave a brief history of this piece of property. (Already covered in previous minutes) . He asked if the Council thought anyone would want to buy the lot for a single family residence. Mayor Kirkham pointed out Mrs. Anderson did. Mr. Edmundson said yes, in 1949, but attitudes have changed since then. People then placed a premium on corner lots, but such is not the case anymore. There should be some type of buffer between the residential area and the industry to the north, and what would be better than a nice double bungalow? Appraisers will devalue a home across from industrial property. Mrs. Anderson has property she cannot use and cannot sell,yet must pay taxes on it. The best use of the pro- perty must be considered. It has been mentioned this would be setting a pre- cident, would that be bad? This action was started in June and they have been working with the Planning Commission since then. It is unfair to keep her waiting this long. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1971 PAGE 10 Councilman Harris asked if there is a building on Lot 16 now. Mr. Edmundson said no, and added that 25 years from now, if for some reason those homes on Lots 17, 18, 19 and 20 were destroyed, they would never be built back up as residential. As to Lot E, Mr. O'Loughlin has said he wants to build a nice home in there, but it has been for sale for 2 years. He said he had made a sketch of the property and they plan access for the north half on 69th and for the south half off Central Avenue. Councilman Liebl said the Planning Commission recommended denial. He would like to give this request back to them and ask them to consider this whole area. He said he was not sure how to insure proper screening for Mr. O'Loughlin, or how access could be provided for the other lots. He thought the Planning Commission turned the request down partly because the applicants were anxious for an answer. Mr. George Zeglen (Planning (bmmission) said that the first week in November would be the first this could be considered. Mr. Edmundson said that the owner of Lot 19 is present and asked if she would have any objection to the rezoning. Mrs. Raymond Logid, 1340 69th Avenue N.E. , said no, she did not feel it would be a detriment to the community. She would not find looking at a double bungalow objectionable. She added that there are going to be many multiple units to the east of there, so why object to just a double bungalow? Mr. Phillip O'Loughlin, 5387 Altura Road N.E. , said he had been a resident in Fridley since 1956. It is true they did have plans to- build in that area, but there is not sewer and water available and they felt it was not economically feasible at this time, but he would still like to sometime in the future. If there was a double bungalow on Lot 16, he definitely would not. He pointed out that he pays taxes too, and he felt this area should stay residential. He said that if this area is rezoned to R-2, maybe others would also. Councilman Breider said that he was not sure sending this back to the Planning Commission would accomplish anything. Mr. Zeglen pointed out the vote was 5 - 0 in favor of denial. On Lots 17, 18, 19 and 20,the homes sit quite far back on the lots and he was sure these people are not going to destroy their homes to put in double bungalows. Mrs. Logid said the homes are about 19 years old, so they are really not that old. Councilman Kelshaw asked Mr. Zeglen what about the multiple area to the the east of Lot 16. Mr. Zeglen said the Planning Commission did not consider that, it is removed from this immediate area. Councilman Kelshaw said that perhaps the Commission should consider the whole area. Councilman Breider said that the people have indicated that they wanted to stay residential. Mayor Kirkham pointed out that the Commission was only asked to consider Lot 16 and what Councilman Kelshaw wants is to ask them to consider the area as a whole. Councilman Breider asked Mrs. Logid if she would rezone to R-2. Mrs. Logid said she would have no objection, it would not affect her, she would not be rebuilding. Councilman Breider asked her if she would object if Lot E was rezoned to R-2 and she replied she would not object to that either. You are only talking about two families on Lot 16, and there will be many multiple units to the east of them. Mr. Donald Reese said they plan to spend $40,000 on the double bungalow on the north half of the lot. If they get the rezoning, they will try to get a lot split and they may sell the south half. He felt the lot would look much better with a $40,000 unit on it and that it would beautify the area. He pointed out to Mr. s REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1971 PAGE 11 O'Loughlin that if he were to rezone to R-2, it would help the sale of his property. MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to table this item, with the comment that there were some things he would like to check into before he votes. Seconded by Councilman Liebl. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried unanimously. RECESS: Mayor Kirkham declared a recess at 10:00. The Meeting reconvened at 10:30 P.M. VISITOR: Mrs Sandra Reid, 4573 Main Street N.E. , Complaint of Park Construction Trucks Hauling at Night on Main Street: Mrs. Reid asked if Park Construction had a permit to haul on Main Street at night. She said they were hauling at 3:00 A.M. last Thursday. It did not continue on Saturday or Sunday. The City Engineer said they did receive per- mission to haul only to the FMC site at night. They do not have permission to haul on Main Street at night. Councilman Harris said he was glad she brought this to the Council's attention and added this is not the only complaint. Councilman Liebl said that he told Mrs. Reid the Council gave permission on a temporary basis to see how it works out. If there are too many complaints, the Council will again review the question when their time is up on the permit. There have been complaints on the blasting also. The Prosecuting Attorney said there has been a considerable amount of trouble through the Police Department, but not concerned with night hauling. They have been mostly traffic violations, such as speeding. Park Construction has been told of the trouble and they acted quickly and the complaints stopped. Mayor Kirkham assured Mrs. Reid Park Construction would be told and asked that she call the City Manager if it happens again. Councilman Harris said people have registered complaints about the speeding on Osborne Road going past the hospital. It seemed they considered their speed limit 60 MPH both full and empty. The Prosecuting Attorney said they were told if necessary the radar equipment would be set out and there would be additional patrol cars. The Police Department has been assured by Mr. Carlson that he would talk to his truck drivers, and since then, the speeding seems to have stopped. Councilman Harris said they did not receive permission to haul on Main Street at 3:00 A.M. and they should be notified of this complaint. The City Engineer said that in the beginning there was a dust problem from material falling off the trucks, so Fridley required sweeping. They seem to have taken care of the traffic problems. If the truck drivers are hauling on Main Street at night, it may be without Mr. Carlson's knowledge. They have made a diligent effort to keep the problems to a minimum. The Prosecuting Attorney said that if they received permission to haul on any street at night, this is contrary to the Code, so the squad cars should be notified. The City Engineer said that before the construction started, the Council was made aware that there would be problems. Park Construction is trying to keep these problems to a minimum. He agreed he certainly did not want people bothered at 3:00 A.M. He said he would continue to work with them. r 1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1971 PAGE 12 MOTION by Councilman Harris to instruct the Administration to notify Park Construction of the complaints received, and specifically, that they are not to haul on Main Street at night. Seconded by Councilman Kelshaw. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried unanimously. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE FOR VACATION SAV #71-05 OF A SIXTY FOOT WIDE PUBLIC STREET, UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF GARDENA AVENUE' i AND WEST OF GRACE HIGH SCHOOL: (Matterhorn Drive) MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to approve the ordinance on first reading and waive the reading. Seconded by Councilman Liebl. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried unanimously. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE FOR REZONING REQUEST ZOA #71-05 BY REAL ESTATE 10, INC. , GENERALLY LOCATED AT HILLWIND ROAD IN THE 1000 BLOCK: The City Engineer reported there was one gentleman who objected to the rezoning and felt this was not the best use of the property. He felt that with the whole area multiple, that an office building would Be out of place. MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to approve the ordinance on first reading and waive the reading. Seconded by Councilman Liebl. Upon a roll call vote, Breider, Kelshaw, Kirkham, Liebl and Harris voting aye, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #71-02, HARLAND E. BERRY TO CONSTRUCT DOUBLE BUNGALOWS ON LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 4, OSTMAN'S 3RD ADDITION PER CITY CODE 45.051, 3,D: Mr. Roger Peterson said that the lots in the present condition are a detriment to the area, and double bungalows would certainly be an improvement. They would be walk-outs to the rear and would appear as single family homes. East River Road is not the best place to locate single family homes, people do not want to build on East River Road. There are many homes for sale along East River Road. Councilman Harris said he had reviewed this location. There are only two empty lots in the area, and in the adjacent area are single family lots. It has been the policy of the Council not to allow double bungalows in a single family area. Councilman Breider asked if it was not correct that he tried to get this rezoned before. Mr. Peterson said yes, Lot 3. He was going to build and live on the property but when he was turned down, he bought a house in Coon Rapids. He said he still felt as he felt then, that this would be a good use for the property, and as it is, it is a detriment. He said if he could sell the property as R-1, he would have done so long ago. MOTION by Councilman Harris to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation and deny the request. Seconded by Councilman Breider. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 6, 1971: LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #71-10, 0 ADOLPH R. ELASKY: To split Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 4, Adams Street Addition into two building sites. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 1971 PAGE 15 MOTION by Councilman Liebl to concur with the recommendation of the City Attorney and approve the agreement for the acquisition of part of Lot 16, Block 5, Hyde Park Addition from Mr. Kenneth Knapp. (St. 1970-3) Seconded by Councilman Kelshaw. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF CLAIM, SEWER SERVICE AT 5017 CLEARVIEW LANE N.E. , FRANK SARAZIN: MOTION by Councilman Harris to concur with the recommendation of the Adminis- tration and approve payment of the claim of Frank Sarazin in the amount of $250. Seconded by Councilman Liebl. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO EXTEND BLASTING AND CRUSHING PERMIT - PARK CON- STRUCTION COMPANY: The City Engineer said the Council authorized a 30 day permit for blasting, and their request is to extend their permit for blasting until the end of the project. They would also like to proceed with the crushing for the duration of the project. They have not as )et done any blasting in Fridley, it has all been done in Columbia Heights so far. There were some problems with the blasting and they have increased the number of charges and decreased the size of the charge and since then there have been no further complaints. If the Council wishes to extend the permit, he would suggest extending to 90 days, and at that time the Council could again review it. The City Manager said he would like to emphasize that the blasting and crushing should only be done during normal working hours. Mr. Gerald McDonald, Park Construction, said the crusher is not located in Fridley, but in Columbia Heights and they work two 8 hour shifts from 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. The City Engineer commented that this was in Columbia Heights' jurisdiction and they could regulate the crushing. He suggested the permit contain the same conditions as the one they are operating under now. Council- man Liebl said the Council would appreciate it if Park Construction would con- tinue to use East River Road as they agreed and stay off the residential streets as much as possible. MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to approve the blasting permit for Park Construc- tion for three months with the same conditions as the one they are operating under now. The motion was seconded and upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried unanimously. CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN MEETING: CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE FOR REZONING REQUEST ZOA #71-06 TO REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-2 (DOUBLE BUNGALOW) AREA GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE S.E. CORNER OF CENTRAL AVENUE AND 69TH AVENUE - DONALD W. REESE: The interested parties came back from their conference in the Community Room and said they had contacted Mr. Ing Siverts, owner of Lot C, south and slightly east of Lot 16, and he was now present. Councilman Harris said that his suggestion was, recognizing the problem of developing this corner lot, would be to allow a double bungalow on the north i ` REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 1971 PAGE 16 ' ^+ half of the lot, split the lot, and maintain the south half of the lot for a single family dwelling. Mr. Siverts said that his property does not abut Lot 16, so as far as he was concerned, it did not make any difference to-him whether it was developed as R-1 or R-2, or if it was split. He felt that the major consideration would be the traffic problem to the people living there because of the traffic from Onans and Medtronics. Councilman Kelshaw asked him if he would be opposed to Lot E being rezoned for double bungalows and he replied yes, if this would be setting a precident for double bungalows to move downward, then he would ob- ject, if not, he would not care. Councilman Harris said that this may not be a factor now, but it may at some future time. Mr. Edmundson questioned, if a road were to go in south of Lot 16, they would have one half of the cost, and asked Mr. Siverts if there was an easement given for that. Mr. Siverts said Lot E has 66' frontage on Central Avenue. This is the amount of land Fridley did not want for their park. This would suggest there is enough land for a roadway to serve the north half of Lot E with access. Mr. Edmundson pointed out that if this rezoning does not go through, there is a possibility Mrs. Anderson may be assessed on the south side of the lot besides being assessed on the north side, and she still cannot sell the lot. If she does not split the lot, she will be doubly assessed. Councilman Harris said, as far as his vote was concerned, he would not allow a rezoning on the whole lot. Mr. Edmundson said there would be no benefit to Lot 16 in having the road to the south of Lot 16 unless the lot was split. Councilman Harris said true, but two structures are not allowed on one lot without a lot split. Councilman Harris said, as to assessments, Central Avenue is a county road and the City assesses for curbing, however, in this case, there is no curbing at this time. Mrs. Baker asked what about the utilities. The Finance Director said there is no sideyard assessment for utilities, they are assessed on front footage. Mr. Edmundson said if the Reeses' do not buy the lot, then Mrs. Anderson could be assessed for improvements she cannot afford, she cannot afford the lot now. Mr. Reese said that he and his wife had decided they would like to rezone the whole lot. MOTION by Councilman Breider to denyothe rezoning on Lot 16,Revised Auditor's Subdivision #10 from R-1 to R-2 requested by Donald W. Reese. Seconded by Councilman Harris. Councilman Liebl asked Mr. Phillip O'Loughlin (Lot E) if his position was that if he also would have the right to rezone to R-2, he would not oppose this rezoning, but if he were to be denied rezoning on Lot E, then he would be opposed to this rezoning, and Mr. O'Loughlin replied yes. Councilman Liebl asked if he would be opposed to a lot split with either R-1 or R-2 and Mr. O'Loughlin said no. Mrs. Anderson said that a part of the purchase agreement was that it would be sold if it could be rezoned. She said if she had to pay an assessment for street, sewer and water, she just could not do it. Mrs. Baker added that Mrs. Anderson is not holding this land for investment, she has been trying to dispose of it. s REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 1971 PAGE 17 The City Attorney said he wanted to point out that if this request is turned down anotherannot be made for six months. Mrs. Baker said the frontage of c g Lot E is 66 feet and the lot is approximately 1' acres. The majority of the property is not on Central, but is back and is quiet and secluded. She did not feel a double bungalow on Lot 16 would affect Lot E because of the way the lot is laid out, any structure would have to be set quite far back and this would further remove it from Lot 16. She added that the double bungalow could not be seen through the trees anyhow. Councilman Harris said the question here is where to draw the line. By setting a precident, the City could not then deny a rezoning on Lot 17 etc. Councilman Kelshaw said the majority of the people have not been in opposition to the rezoning. If there was a single family dwelling on Lot E, there still would not be any need for a new road. The double bungalow would have to face Central Avenue. Mr. Reese said yes, they would plan to face the building toward Central Avenue. THE VOTE upon the motion, being a voice vote, Harris, Breider and Kirkham voting aye, Kelshaw and Liebl voting nay, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried. Councilman Liebl commented that he could not see why anyone would build a residential home on this lot, and in his opinion, this request was a legitimate one. Mrs. Baker added there will probably be future requests for rezoning on this lot, there have been some inquiries into this lot for commercial use, and she thought that a double bungalow would be preferable to commercial as far as the residents were concerned. Mayor Kirkham said he agreed with Councilman Harris, he would have voted in favor of rezoning the north half of the lot, but he could not go along with rezoning the whole lot. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR PERFORMANCE OF A TRANSPORTATION STUDY FOR NORTHTOWN CORRIDOR: MOTION by Councilman Harris to approve the agreement for the performance of a transportation study for the Northtown Corridor. Seconded by Councilman Breider. Upon a voice vote,all ayes, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION #139-1971 - APPROVING PLANS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS: WATER, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER PROJECT #105-1: MOTION by Councilman Liebl to adopt Resolution #139-1971. Seconded by Council- man Breider. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION REGARDING COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - FRIDLEY IMPLEMENTING THE JOINT POWERS ACT: Mayor Kirkham said the proposal is to see if Columbia Heights and Fridley could agree to enter into a study to see if there are any areas where the two cities could work jointly to save either time, money or energy, or to be more effecient. This was done five years ago with Spring Lake Park, Hilltop, Fridley, and Columbia Heights. Since that time Fridley has developed considerably. He said his primary concern was to be in a position to prove to the Metropolitan Council, if and when there was a time to become one city, that the cities can function better individually to solve their own problems, Tf " study were to show there were some areas Fridley and Coiu.,"Dia Heights could work jointly, fine. I'I REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 1971 PAGE 18 Councilman Harris said one area for discussion would be for fire protection to be from Columbia Heights for the lower section of Fridley since it is closer. Mayor Kirkham agreed and added that the suburbs must constantly be prepared to respond to any dictates of the Metropolitan Council. Councilman Liebl said he would like to see the staff lay out some criteria for discussion. At this stage he did not feel the talk should be at the Council level. He added that he knew Columbia Heights had some pollution problems Fridley does not have. They also have problems with their police pension fund. He asked if this was any kind of a forerunner to becoming one city. Mayor Kirkham said in no way is this the suggestion. He said he did not think this was a staff problem, but that the two Councils should get together to find areas to work out. Councilman Liebl said it may be found at the staff level that there is no common ground. Councilman Breider agreed that the Administration should formulate just what should be investigated. There may be some points the Administration could sxggest that the Council is not aware of. MOTION by Councilman Harris to ask the Fridley City Manager to meet with the Columbia Heights City Manager to determine if there is any common ground to work on that would be of benefit to both cities. It may be apparent at a very early date there would be no benefit. Seconded by Councilman Liebl. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING UP-TO-DATE REPORT ON REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #104 - LOCKE LAKE DAM: - MOTION by Councilman Harris to receive the report from Comstock and Davis, Inc. , Consulting Engineers, dated October 27, 1971. Seconded by Councilman Breider. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried unanimously. CLAIMS: MOTION by Councilman Liebl to approve payment of General Claims #26660 through #26780 and Liquor Claims #6072 through #6103. Seconded by Councilman Breider. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried unanimously. LICENSES: Multiple Dwellings Name Address Units Fee Approved By Lucia Lane Apts. 6670 Lucia Lane 16 $16.00 Fire Prev. Bureau Vernon M. Eide, Gen. Partner 412 Southview Blvd. South St. Paul, Minn. Same 6680 Lucia Lane 16 $16.00 Fire Prev. Bureau Same 6690 Lucia Lane 16 $16.00 Fire Prev. Bureau t. t f ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA BY MAKING A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICTS The City Council of the City of Fridley do ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Appendix D of the City Code of Fridley is amended as hereinafter indicated. SECTION 2. The tract or area within the County of Anoka and the City of Fridley and described as: Lot 16, Block 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 10, lying in the Northeast Quarter of Section 13, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District R-2 (Two Family Dwellings Areas) . SECTION 3. That the Zoning Administrator is directed to change the official zoning map to show said tract or area From Zoned District R-1 (Single Family Dwellings Areas) to R-2 (Two Family Dwellings Areas) . PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1971. MAYOR - Jack 0. Kirkham ATTEST: CITY CLERK - Marvin C. Brunsell Public Hearing: October 12, 1971 First Reading:_ October 18, 1971 Second Reading: Publish. . . . . . .